linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net v2] tcp: avoid creating multiple req socks with the same tuples

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 14 Jun 2019 07:25:23 -0700
From:   Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To:     maowenan <maowenan@...wei.com>
Cc:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] tcp: avoid creating multiple req socks with the
 same tuples

On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 7:04 AM maowenan <maowenan@...wei.com> wrote:
> I agree that this is a special case.
> I propose one point about the sequence of synack, if two synack with two different
> sequence since the time elapse 64ns, this issue disappear.
>
> tcp_conn_request->tcp_v4_init_seq->secure_tcp_seq->seq_scale
> static u32 seq_scale(u32 seq)
> {
>         /*
>          *      As close as possible to RFC 793, which
>          *      suggests using a 250 kHz clock.
>          *      Further reading shows this assumes 2 Mb/s networks.
>          *      For 10 Mb/s Ethernet, a 1 MHz clock is appropriate.
>          *      For 10 Gb/s Ethernet, a 1 GHz clock should be ok, but
>          *      we also need to limit the resolution so that the u32 seq
>          *      overlaps less than one time per MSL (2 minutes).
>          *      Choosing a clock of 64 ns period is OK. (period of 274 s)
>          */
>         return seq + (ktime_get_real_ns() >> 6);
> }
>
> So if the long delay larger than 64ns, the seq is difference.

The core issue has nothing to do with syncookies.

Are you sure you really understand this stack ?